The basic analysis of spatial structure is founded on the basics of fundamentally different hypothesis of ontological ‘interaction’ between space (later on, the four-dimensional space-time continuum will be included in the discussion) and matter, the result of which defines fundamental bases of the matter based on spatial conglomerate voids. Relativist concepts of theoretical physics define special states of the space, explained by curves in analytical procedures or by absolute, exclusive variants introducing the notion of singularity.  

Therefore, the object C on the same space interval shortens the necessary time for crossing the given distance by accelerating its speed. The problem with this procedure is the following: accelerating speed or the referent defining mode explained by time, i.e. shortening the time interval is in fact a mode of space shrinking. Thus, accelerating speed in any way and related to any material object in nature, in accordance with the mentioned hypothesis on conglomerate space voids defined by the matter, is not really accelerating speed per time unit, but rather physical shrinking of space for the given observed movement interval. In this case, the difficulty with which our mind is faced is obvious; namely, it is a direct inability to replace the referent perception coordinates for the given observed process with the inductively, empirical non-obvious. In the above mentioned problem, variability of a certain interaction in time coordinate should be transferred to the aspect of spatial system; in a way, fundamental perception attributes of time and space, seemingly disparate, become a necessary synthetic aspect for the analytical subject.

According to this theoretical model, space modulation on the fundamental aspect is under no condition equal to relativist variability – curving forms such as the results of the gravity effect of the matter; the similarity between the two is strictly semantic. Ortho-dimensional space structure means immanent dimensional indeterminability of space; dimensional structure is exclusively founded on the bases of the perception process, although in this case, the hypothesis of introducing an idealist or illusionist model of space structure should be absolutely eliminated. A fundamental attribute of the space substance is non-spread; in other words, if we try to define an interval of spatial complex (although it is impossible to speak of the notion of the interval of spatial complex per se, in accordance with the set model of conglomerate negative crevices, which should be discussed in more detail later), it is absolutely impossible to transfer the notions of extension and intensity. Space dimensionality is absolutely exclusive per se and analogously to the spacetron concept, non-determinism of space dimensionality per se implies the metaphor of spacetron as a self-set point as certain multidimensionality per se. Basic geometry of sub-dimensional space would represent self-exclusiveness of its own.  

By founding a conceptual model of subdimensional or adimensional space, we hypothesise a defining model directly opposite to the classical bases of scientific interpretations. The following conclusion can be drawn: dimensional space structure does not represent a subductional product of the matter; it is rather an immanent, intrinsic result of the fundamental self-setting of the composite spacetron whole. Bearing in mind elimination of the possibility of the space not possessing its fundamental attributes such as spread or successive entity composition on its fundamental aspect, an implicit supposition of absolute founding of spatial complex in the form of spread absolute negation, i.e. the point aspect emerges.

This implication should be completely avoided. Namely, the nature of the semantics of the notions we use in order to define a certain concept, even if on a compromising level, is that the algorithm structure of the unspecified domain should necessarily be approximated to the subject, regardless of whether we use intentional notions the meaning of which refers to the outside world or to the subjective, introspective domain; however, the truthfulness of the meaning of the notional construction may be, and most often in fact is, absolutely erroneous. 

The other aspect of the above mentioned problem is represented in the form of theoretical-analytical discourse, such as variations; mathematical notion of the point is very often immanent in the multi-disciplinary scientific models; the concept of transferring the macrocosmic plan from a non-dimensional, mathematical ‘nothingness’ is interesting because of the confrontation between the reason and the abstract, mind understanding it causes. Semantic and discursive, notional concept of point is drawn from the induction of the spatial complex including natural interactions, although the idealists seem to be inclined towards a priori forms of perception and comprehension of spatial-temporal relations. This claim appears to be true, but the complexity of this relationship should be explained in more detail. If the inductive knowing of the dimensional space structure is negated, then the concept of point is justifiably derivable, but the problem of subdimensional space goes beyond the absolute point negativity according to theoretical-logical necessity.